Runtu wrote:It's pretty simple. It's hard to believe in God unless you are willing to accept that there are things beyond your ability to know rationally and empirically. I'm not sure there's a way to "test" for the existence of God. If you believe, you will probably experience things that you accept are either God or are from God. The scientific method rests on the principle of repeatability. A testimony simply doesn't result every time in every place for every person.
But we don't know that--the "testimony simply doesn't result every time in every place for every person". Afterall its all up to each person to draw his/her own conclusions. Perhaps it does result but each person draws separate conclusions.
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
Buffalo wrote:The "spiritual manifestation" is obviously not the same for everyone. For some it's warm fuzzies, other's burning of the bosom, others goosebumps/chills, etc.
Lots of people have many of these types of reactions when watching certain types of movies or listening to certain music, etc. Certain people are even biologically predisposed to feel goosebumps when listening to music.
Whatever it is that you experienced, there is no way for you to really verify that it came from god. So it's not much of a method of getting at the truth if you can't verify the authenticity of the message.
If we can draw any pertinent parallels you'd have a point, i think. but we can't. There a lots of things in history that we can't actually verify. There are lots of things in science we can't verify. Try verifying the age of things--carbon dating. We can find repeatability but that doesn't verify anymore than my repeated experiences.
If you kept getting letters from someone (unsigned),and a third party kept claiming that they were from Queen Elizabeth, but there was no stamped envelope, no return address, and no other evidence that it was really the Queen writing you, how much credence would you put in those messages? Sure, you got a message, but from who?
Good point. There are tons of things we can't verify but we rely on too. So I don't see the fuss about spiritual experience and denying that its a possible means of determining truths.
Carbon dating is a bad example. While there is a margin of error, it IS a reliable method of dating things. There are many, many things we can verify and be sure of. What is it you had in mind?
Off hand I can't think of anything less reliable than the Spirit, short of Tarot Cards and such. Can you?
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
stemelbow wrote:But we don't know that--the "testimony simply doesn't result every time in every place for every person". Afterall its all up to each person to draw his/her own conclusions. Perhaps it does result but each person draws separate conclusions.
So, maybe people are just misinterpreting their spiritual experiences. That assumes, however, that everyone has spiritual experiences. Not everyone does.
Analytics wrote:Thomas had the right idea: physical examination of a physical being. Elijah had the right idea too—demonstrate God’s power in front of skeptics.
In principle, God interacting with the world can be scientifically tested. As an easy example, a double-blind test could be done where 200 blessings are given: 100 with oil that’s been consecrated, and 100 with oil that hasn’t been consecrated. The priesthood holders doing the blessing and the sick being blessed wouldn’t know whether or not they had the consecrated oil or the placebo. Would there be a statistically significant difference in how well consecrated oil clinically performs compared to non-consecrated oil?
There are far more factors involved than consecrated oil though.
In general, to the extent that God interacts with reality, there are scientifically valid ways to evaluate that interaction.
I don't think your example of blessings is all that helpful to pove this. anything else?
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
Morley wrote:What do you mean here? Are you suggesting that carbon dating doesn't work or isn't accurate?
The nice thing about dating techniques is that they overlap, and thus, with multiple types of tests, you can get a very accurate date. This notion that it's unreliable is just one of those creationist memes.
Fifth Columnist wrote:Scottie already hit on the salient point. God tells people contradictory and incorrect things through the mechanism of the "Spirit."
Is it God tells people or people assume God tells them contradictory things? We can't verify each and everyone's claims.
Scottie cited Rod Meldrum's belief (and the belief of just about every prophet and apostle up until 20 years ago), based on a witness from the Spirit, that the Book of Mormon events occurred in the midwest. Your response is to say that he misinterpreted his witness from the "Spirit" but that you know your witness is real. How you can be so sure he is wrong and you are right?
Developing skill in comprehending spiritual experience and being able to understand it are perhaps essential. Its not necessarily the spiritual manifestations that are so different but the conclusions formed in the human mind that is varied.
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
Buffalo wrote:Carbon dating is a bad example. While there is a margin of error, it IS a reliable method of dating things. There are many, many things we can verify and be sure of. What is it you had in mind?
Off hand I can't think of anything less reliable than the Spirit, short of Tarot Cards and such. Can you?
We can't go back in time to verify we got the dating right. That is the purpose of my example.
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
Runtu wrote:So, maybe people are just misinterpreting their spiritual experiences. That assumes, however, that everyone has spiritual experiences. Not everyone does.
Perhaps everyone does but does not realize it.
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.